• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Do you believe the functions are (pointing to something) real?

Do you believe the functions are (pointing to something) real?


  • Total voters
    36

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
i think it breaks down at a certain point. where exactly does your liver end? where do individual cells begin? where exactly do we draw boundary lines classifying one thing from the next? it seems so easy at the macro level to distinguish "pillow" from "18 wheeler", but when you get to really into tiny particles we all are essentially made of the same thing. so where does red stop being red and where does it start being orange, or purple? why didn't we choose red-orange as a color instead of red and orange? where does Ne end and Se begin?

reality... it's interpreted. we don't really know for sure if there is an objective reality. there is just what we hold to be true, and what we do not. certain things point us towards believing in a communal reality, but really the only excellent argument against solipsism is how incredibly not useful it is.

If I were to punch you in the face, would you still question whether my fist was real...?

Solipsism is retarded.

It's a problem created by people who have too much time and wealth, and not enough real problems.

I guarantee you, starving people in Africa aren't questioning whether the world is actually real.

They are trying to get food.

Only people from societies with too much abundance to have real problems have problems like questioning whether or not the world is real.

I recommend you read about Aristotle's four causes to help you get a little bit out of "I :heart: Huckabees" land, and a bit back more into reality...

(sorry about harsh treatment, it's nothing personal; you know I like you; I just don't tolerate solipsism, and I wouldn't want to see you fall prey to it.)
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Zarathustra said:
Solipsism is retarded.

oh, agreed. my bad, i didn't mean to sound like i was supporting it. i just mean it's really hard to argue against, but obviously you and i can see that it's really quite stupid in application.

i'm not offended though :laugh: just to throw it back to typology, my dad's an NT. i grew up being questioned with rigor and sarcasm ;)

But see, minutes are very clear and distinct concepts, that actually point to something in reality: a certain amount of time passes, and it is not an hour, nor a second, nor a day, but a minute. It is clearly delineated, and, while it may be a human construct, it still describes an objective occurrence in reality: the passing of a specific amount of time.

Purple is a little less clear and distinct, as there are various shades of purple, and the color is also much more dependent on the observer than is the measurement of the passing of a minute.

In this sense, a minute is more "real" than "purple", although, I would argue that purple is still rather real, in and of itself.

My question is: where do the functions fall in this game?

Obviously, we have constructed the concept of the functions.

But are they actually out there in reality? Like a liver (which is most certainly real)? Or a minute?

Or are they more on a level of reality like purple? Or are they more real than purple? Or less real?

:thinking:

ooh, but i disagree. a minute is just more universally agreed upon, while purple is more nebulous, simply by the nature of a minute being more easily measurable. i think there are certain spectrum wavelengths which coincide with purple, but we're not all familiar with them because we don't carry around spectroscopes like we do watches, and we haven't all agreed on a certain number at which purple stops being purple, while the entire idea of a minute is based on when it stops being a minute - minutes are a more practical concept than colors because we use them for more precise things. as a web designer i work in hex colors, which are very much like minutes with specified numbers correlating to specific tones.

i really think all we can argue is that either everything is real, or everything is of questionable reality. i think it's very, very hard to delineate between them. because, after all, what's going to be your ruler for reality?

i think that's where we just need to ditch the idea of delineating reality and go with what works in the practical world. do the functions work? seemingly, for a lot of us. if they don't, let's ditch them. we can individually ditch them, too, but of course we can't pretend like others don't hold them to be reality. ultimately this is how we treat our "facts" to a large extent, too. the world was flat until the equations stopped working. then we were forced to change our perceptions.

whether it's good or not... i dunno. i think there's a balance to be struck between skepticism and practicality.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Functions aim at real targets, they just have a shaky shooting stance. On Se they hit the target, on Ni they overshoot to the moon.

Interesting stance, per usual, Mr. Blaise.

Especially considering Se is the most concrete of the functions, while Ni is the most abstract...
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
ooh, but i disagree. a minute is just more universally agreed upon, while purple is more nebulous, simply by the nature of a minute being more easily measurable. i think there are certain spectrum wavelengths which coincide with purple, but we're not all familiar with them because we don't carry around spectroscopes like we do watches, and we haven't all agreed on a certain number at which purple stops being purple, while the entire idea of a minute is based on when it stops being a minute - minutes are a more practical concept than colors because we use them for more precise things. as a web designer i work in hex colors, which are very much like minutes with specified numbers correlating to specific tones.

i really think all we can argue is that either everything is real, or everything is of questionable reality. i think it's very, very hard to delineate between them. because, after all, what's going to be your ruler for reality?

Please see above regarding solipsism.

I understand your point; trust me, I do.

But at some point you have to get beyond mere relativism, and you have to start looking at things on a sliding scale of reality.

It's not either/or, it's how much on a scale of 0-100.

That's my point.

Where on that scale you want to start calling something real: well, like purple, that's up to you.

But let's be willing to throw our stake somewhere, and not just get all wishy-wishy and call everything the same.

Oh, and for the record: I love "I :heart: Huckabees".
 

stalemate

Post-Humorously
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,402
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
:yes:



Hmm...

I don't know about blaming it on being a perceiver, but there is a definite distinction between the two.

To say they "are" pointing to something real is to imply a high level of definitude.

To say they "may be" pointing to something real is to imply a low level of definitude.

I did consider being more definitive about "may be", and saying "I'm 50/50", as I have in previous similar polls.

I decided against it, cuz saying one is 50/50 is even more definitive than just saying "may be", and I preferred leaving it a little open for interpretation.
I consider "may be" a range from 0% probability all the way to 100% probability. 100% is also "are" and 0% is "not" but I count both also as "may be" to allow for being wrong. :tongue:
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
We're (probably) not going to be able to find out until someone draws neat lines between some sophisticated model of brain function and some properly articulated description of functions. And behold, some will say we have a solution to the mind-body problem, but we still won't.

Consciousness as we are (seemingly all) thus far aware of it is essentially private. Brain function, by contrast, is essentially public. Typological notions are some kind of mixed project, an attempt to codify, nay objectify, reported private experience. Thus... [something].

Without thinking too much about it just now, it seems like questions of the reality of typology will always struggle to get over the discontinuity that is the public/private divide.



...unless something happens with consciousness itself and we, I guess, find ways to become aware of the mechanism.... meaning the private experience of consciousness becomes--what? informed?--by the public events of brain and body function.... or something.

Or not.

Dunno.


*divides by zero*
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I consider "may be" a range from 0% probability all the way to 100% probability. 100% is also "are" and 0% is "not" but I count both also as "may be" to allow for being wrong. :tongue:

Agreed. That's why I asked for people to choose the best fit. I wanted to see whether they were definite in their belief, or more wishy-washy...
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Like function theory and questions regarding it.

I would agree with the bottom of those two sentences.

Except I wouldn't call function theory a problem.

I would not agree with the top.

In fact, one of the reasons we live in the abundance we do is because we have minds inquiring about valuable subjects, pushing forward our understanding of the world.

Solipsism may have been a step along that path, but it's utility and worth have a time and place, and that is college.

It is not an idea suitable for grown-ups.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
As we continue to develop technology to bring the world into our own homes and, soon thereafter, into our own heads, solipsism will become a very relevant concept.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
As we continue to develop technology to bring the world into our own homes and, soon thereafter, into our own heads, solipsism will become a very relevant concept.

I agree that outgrowths and realizations from solipsistic thought can be very worthwhile, a la Baudrillard's hyperreality (which I believe you are pointing to), et al.

/derail
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
ooh, but i disagree. a minute is just more universally agreed upon, while purple is more nebulous, simply by the nature of a minute being more easily measurable. i think there are certain spectrum wavelengths which coincide with purple, but we're not all familiar with them because we don't carry around spectroscopes like we do watches, and we haven't all agreed on a certain number at which purple stops being purple, while the entire idea of a minute is based on when it stops being a minute - minutes are a more practical concept than colors because we use them for more precise things. as a web designer i work in hex colors, which are very much like minutes with specified numbers correlating to specific tones.

i really think all we can argue is that either everything is real, or everything is of questionable reality. i think it's very, very hard to delineate between them. because, after all, what's going to be your ruler for reality?

i think that's where we just need to ditch the idea of delineating reality and go with what works in the practical world. do the functions work? seemingly, for a lot of us. if they don't, let's ditch them. we can individually ditch them, too, but of course we can't pretend like others don't hold them to be reality. ultimately this is how we treat our "facts" to a large extent, too. the world was flat until the equations stopped working. then we were forced to change our perceptions.

whether it's good or not... i dunno. i think there's a balance to be struck between skepticism and practicality.

This is so delightfully the way I think about the world :yes:

I take the knowingly flawed, abstract thing, use it in its blurry form to get some sort of answer, which works okay until I get more information that I can use to update my models to be more close to reality....however it's like a race to a finish line that I will never reach as they will never be perfect...because reality is too complex.

I sometimes work really hard to segment and analyze the world into little pieces for fun, but all knowing the while that the world blurs the pieces back together again in a united whole way. It's like I am playing a joke on myself and it makes me giggle.

I suspect it is TeSi trying to serious while NeFi just thinks it is quite funny as it sees past the boxed simplicity into the complexity of the individual. My boxes all blur together!

Functions? I'd speculate what we have named as functions likely have a biological correlate-not a specific part of the brain but perhaps a pattern of usage that we are predisposed to, a concerted pattern. A lot of behaviors, motives and thought patterns seem to reduce to the functions as a reasonable first approximation.

(sorry about harsh treatment, it's nothing personal; you know I like you; I just don't tolerate solipsism, and I wouldn't want to see you fall prey to it.)

Says the guy with Se in fourth place. To be honest, there are some days the world doesnt feel real...

Just the other day I was like...Oooooo, wouldnt it but cool to take your brain and put it in a cool space ship and zoom around the galaxy exploring???? Se fail.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
I agree that outgrowths and realizations from solipsistic thought can be very worthwhile, a la Baudrillard's hyperreality (which I believe you are pointing to), et al.

/derail
No, that is not what I was thinking about, but we can leave it at that - for the sake of this very unretarded thread.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
hah, hyperreality. awesome idea but gives me a headache.

But at some point you have to get beyond mere relativism, and you have to start looking at things on a sliding scale of reality.

It's not either/or, it's how much on a scale of 0-100.

That's my point.

Where on that scale you want to start calling something real: well, like purple, that's up to you.

But let's be willing to throw our stake somewhere, and not just get all wishy-wishy and call everything the same.

Oh, and for the record: I love "I :heart: Huckabees".

i haven't seen i :heart: huckabees! obviously i really need to now.

but hah, okay. i think ultimately we can still break it all down, but for the sake of practicality, okay.

i'll give the functions a 30% and what they point to a 95%. the functions are much less real than what they point to if only because their existence (as an idea, a conglomeration of processes in our mammalian brains) requires another few more steps away from whatever the tiniest unit of energy is than the chemical processes that they represent. they're father removed from the "ultimate" reality.

Kalach said:
*divides by zero*

cheater. :laugh:
 

Quinlan

Intriguing....
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w1
If I take the functions to mean a natural inclination towards valuing certain kinds of information or methods of judgement then sure I think they're real.

If however I take the functions to mean some kind of special convoluted skill set (bordering superpower) that enables groups of people to do things that others can't (and just so happens to boost my ego and make me feel superior), then no I don't think they're real.
 

animenagai

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,569
MBTI Type
NeFi
Enneagram
4w3
Sooooo... I was reading up for my masters in philosophy, with a thesis in abstract objects when I decided to bum around for a while on forums. I get here and I see the exact topic I was procrastinating on. Geez guys, give me a break :D.

Ok anyways, David Lewis has given us a few ways we can distinct concrete things from abstract ones. Note that we are not supposed to accept all of them, these are just suggestions that we may choose to endorse. I think it's safer to make this distinction first, then decide whether abstract objects exist. These are his methods:

1. The way of example - We just give examples of what are paradigmatically concrete and abstract. Numbers are abstract for example and tables are not. There's nothing more to the distinction than this

2. The way of negation - Abstract objects do not have certain properties that a concrete has. The most common ones are that abstract objects are acausal[/ I] and non-spatiotemporal. Given that abstract objects are supposed to be so different from concrete ones, many philosophers think this distinction is reasonable.

3. The way of abstraction - abstract objects are somehow abstracted from concrete ones by taking away specificity. For example, we may see a beautiful women and from there, we abstract the general property of beauty. I do think this view has a natural anti-abstract-objects bias.

There's also the way of conflation, but I think that's just a sibling to the way of example tbh. Personally, I think option 1 may be the most accurate, but it says nothing for us analytically. It doesn't say anything about why they are abstract and so doesn't do much for us. Option 3 I think is biased, and it also categorizes some paradigmatically abstract objects into concrete ones. I think the most reasonable option is the 2nd one.

Now, I don't actually agree with the acausal principle, in fact, my entire thesis is to attack what I think is a ridiculous premise. However, for our purposes here, I don't think it matters. If we look at functions as mental states, I do believe we have to look at the science involved, that is, there must be some specific chemicals or areas of the brain that react specifically for these functions. In that case, I think its obvious that the functions are causal and spatiotemporal, which means that functions are concrete (enough anyways). It may be that there isn't some singular process/chemical etc. for each function and that they are just combinations of certain brain processes that have a strong correlation with each other, but I think that's fine. As long as there's something unifying each function (such as the correlations I talked about), I don't really see anything too problematic.

Sorry dudes, major :nerd: rant. :p
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
The functions are merely an extremely simplified description of whatever is actually going on. And in a lot of cases, they blur reality more than clearing it up.

Overall, the jury is out on their usefulness.
 
Top